There are issues with both general taxation and splitting it between different channels, because they both more closely leave the BBC beholden to government decisions when it should try to be as independent as possible.

Having said that, if the BBC is going to get special treatment it needs to watch itself when it comes to areas where it could be seen as affecting commercial rivals. The recent BBC Sounds all-out-attack stuff felt like a department felt way too much like a 80s style BBC promotion at the expense of everyone else.

Perhaps we don't know how good we've got it, but I would support the licence fee more if it contributed to all channels. I feel that it basically being there to fund the BBC isn't really fair on commercial rivals. I think what I should have said is that "I'm against the licence fee in its current form".

The licence fee should fund the BBC. End of.
Advertising and other revenue streams should fund commercial broadcasting. End of.

It's always been the same stock response bleating from commercial radio and television. Unlevel playing field. Guaranteed income for the BBC not fair, blah, blah.

Tell you what, ITV and ILR you could have as much, if not even more money than the BBC, you just have to invest in your product/offering.
Better programmes, better awareness, more viewers, equals slightly higher charges for advertisers, equals higher revenues, equals more money for programming, and, a nice fat dividend per share to keep the owners of the company happy.

And, yes there will be times where the BBC will use public money to tread on the lawn of advertiser funded products. But if public money can do the job better. Then I don't have a problem with that.

A small raid on the overall licence fee pot to weaken the BBC to fund commercial television and artificially reduce the gradient of that playing field? Total nonsense.

How much goes on that crap local tv? How much on broadband improvements? How much for the world service ?

These are what causing the problems

As someone who travels frequently with work I find the World Service invaluable. Nothing better than switching on BBC World when jet-lagged in Sydney.

Beware conflating BBC World News on TV with the BBC World Service - they aren't the same thing, and are separately funded.

BBC World News (the TV operation) is a commercially funded TV operation, BBC World Service was an entirely separate, government-funded operation (running mainly radio and online service as well as non-English language TV content) It is now mainly licence-fee funded, with some government assistance.

I don’t have too much issue with the way the BBC is funded - only thing I’d change is to fund it out of general taxation rather than a separate flat amount to make it more progressive.

I think that's where the beginning of the end starts. Once you make it general taxation and reduce the direct link between payment and the BBC, you doom the BBC to be beholden to politicians at a much lower level.

If you are going to remove the TV licence then a household tax (as in Germany) or an individual Public Service Tax (as in Sweden - which is only paid by income tax payers and has a degree of progressive-ness about it, but is a fixed separate tax rather than part of general taxation) could be ways to go. The Public Service Tax was only approved in Sweden last week and is already controversial as it means a household of mum, dad and two adult wage-earning kids will pay significantly more under the new system (4 x Public Service Taxes)